Card name change suggestion

Malachy wrote:

Ratadin wrote:

I gotta say that if Gypsy is actually understood as a slur by romani-people, it should be changed. It would be like having a card called "Nigger". Literally.

It is nothing like the "n" word. I advise you to do some research before jumping into such conversations. I have empathy as well, but it is far from that, and restraining/erasing/overruling the past is actually more barbaric and simple-minded, than empathetic in my opinion. VtES also have Rom gypsies and Tsigane by the way.

But what I'm saying is not "It is a slur, so change it", but "If romani people do think that, we should do it". I do not know, I haven't done any research nor is english my native language.
Here in spain "Gitano" is used as an insult toward non-romani people (implying that romani people are bad), but it is their name, and I feel they are quite proud of being considered "Gitano".

But, again, it doesn't affect any of us (as far as I know), so it should be the romani community, and not a bunch of randos on a web forum, who should say if thei feel offended or not by the card name.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

I mean, the rulebook includes a paragraph explaining how this convention works. If one has to explain a convention being used in a written piece to avoid confusion, that should be a sign to look for a better solution...

I don't think so. If you are setting a new convention, it is but logical that you explain it. D&D used "she" as the default gender for the whole print of 3.5 and it had its explanation of this convention, and it was great.

These things are not confusing, you never will feel that you don't know who they are refering to whenever they use "she" or "he". This is all about feeling represented, and I have to say that the VTES rulebook is one of the most elegant ones I have seen so far.

How about crossing this bridge when we get there?
The chances of a reprint in a bundle is slim, and you can’t change what’s out there.

My cat's name is Gypsy. Uh-oh.

Not necessarily. It is like saying "through this rulebook, we will consider that the player's cars will be the blue ones, while his opponent's will be the red ones.", or "the player to the left is called prey, and the player to the right is called predator".

An anecdote:

In my BA thesis I did interviews, and in order to maintain informant anonymity I established that "in this analysis a gender neutral 'he' will be used to hide informant gender", blah blah blah.

Well, my peer group was like, "WTF, why would you use a masculine pronoun when actually gender neutral pronouns exist?!". I had no idea. I actually had thought that I was considerate enough.

At first I was, like, what's the fuss, but decided to just establish a gender neutral 'they' instead. Shrug, no real trouble for me, and seemed to work.

Not really pivotal to the thread itself, but just this: if it takes very little extra work, these kinds of word sensitivities could just as well be considered.

I have no opinion on the Gypsy thing, though. And I do understand what's done with the rulebook. It's all good. This story just popped to mind.